[150467] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: do not filter your customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Feb 24 16:08:46 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120224205950.GA87433@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:07:28 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Shane Aman=
te wrote:
>> Solving for route leaks is /the/ "killer app" for BGPSEC. =A0I can't und=
erstand why people keep ignoring this.
>
> Not all "leaks" are bad.
>
> I remember when there was that undersea landside in Asia that took
> out a bunch of undersea cables. =A0Various providers quickly did
> mutual transit and other arrangements to route around the problem,
> getting a number of things back up quite quickly. =A0These did not
> match IRR records though, and likely would not have matached BGPSEC
> information, at least not initially.
well.... for bgpsec so if the paths were signed, and origins signed,
why would they NOT pass BGPSEC muster?
I can see that if the IRR data didn't match up sanely
prefix-lists/filters would need some cajoling, but that likely
happened anyway in this case.
-chris
